St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-01-25

WnOIe world II Sne saw lit. He saw no OBJ
lection to intrusting that power to the
president. He believed the president
would only have TO take advantage of this
bill and
ISSUE HIS PROCLAMATION
that no fish, fresh or sailed, or canned or
smoked, the product of Canadian fisher
men, shall be landed in any port Of the
United States and not another outrage by
this British colony would be head of.
But, if these outrageS were to continue,
were to result in reciprocity treaty Gas had
been the case before), that treaty would
again be abrogated and the outrages would
be again renewed. The bill on the same
subject IN the house of representatives went
farther than this bill. It gave the presi-
dent authority to proclaim absolute non
intercourse. He did not believe that the
house committee on foreign affairs would
have reported that bill without knowing
whether or not the administration was
in sympathy with it. The senator from
Maryland (Mr. GOrmanl had introduced a
resolution on the same subject some time
ago: and that senator was known to be q
friend of the administration. The secretary
of the treasury, one Of the brightest men of
the administration, had lately sent recon-
mendation to the senate reviewing the con-
duct of Canada in this matter and had de
clared it to be ''simply brutal" The sec
rotary of state had used diplomatic IAN
guage on the subject, but even he had said
over and over again that the acts Of the
Canadian authorities We're outrageS and that
the United States would demand restitution
Mr.. Gray quoted the secretary of state as
characteriZing lin q note to Minister Vest
the acts of the Canadian authorities as
INHOSPITABLE AND INIUMAN.
Mr. Frye added that the American min.
lister to England, Mr.. Phelps. had made an
eNceptionable, clear, comprehensive and
to him all entirely satisfactory statement of
the whole case. This law, he said, had
power in it. He believed that the presi-
dent had at heart the honor and dignity of
the great republic over which he presided.
He believed that the president was in favor
of protecting the rights of every American
citizen. Aye, more, he believed that he
was an honest man, and that if this law
were passed the power which it would put
into his hands would be used for the pro-
lection of American rights. Mr.. Ingalls,
said that an object which he had in view
had been accomplished. He had desired
and intention Of the committee on foreign
He had been in doubt whether it was in
tended to remit the subject to the domain
of diplomacy. or whether it was intended
as declaration to Great Britain that its
course, if persisted in. would result in war.
He understood from the statement Of the
senator from Maine (NIr. Frye speaking
for the committee as he (AIr. Ingalls) sup
posed he did, that if this bill became a law
it was declaration to Great Britain that
she would continue the practices at her
peril and that if they were persisted in they
must be suppressed by war. The state
ment of facts made by the senator from
Maine
CONSTITUTED A CASUS BELLI
under the law of nations. The continuance
of amicabe intercourse under such circum-
stance would be impossible. He had,
therefore, desired to know whether the pur-
pose of the bill was to invite diplomacy or
to announce to Great Britain that such pro-
ceedIngs had been carried to the extremity
and limit of peaceable solution. The voice
was the voice of Canada, but the hand was
the hand of Great Britain. Mr.. Edmunds
asked MI Ingalls, whether he meant to say
that any act which the people Of the United
States might consider violation Of treaty
was necessarily casus belli.
Nh Ingalls, mean to say that de-
clared and avowed and continued viola
tons OF treaty obligations. or Of interna-
tonal law, were cauSuS belli.
Nh Edmunds-It does not necessarily
follow that every breach Of treaty is to be
followed by war.
Mr.. Ingalls-How about continuous, de-
Iiberate, willful violation of treaty?
Mr.. Edmunds-That is a different thing.
~,
trouble has got to be settled. so far as the
bill is concered, either by diplomacy or by
blood.
Mr.. Edmunds-The question here is hot
a question of war, but is
A QUESTION OF REGULATION.
which all nations have resorted to long be-
fore war, and which usually never comes
to war.
Mr.. IngallS-The senator from Vermont
states that the controversy between the two
countries is merely an Interpretation or
construction of the treaty of 1918.
MI Edmunds-No, sir; L did not say
that.
Mr. Ingalls, understood the senator to
say it. England has always been ruffian
a coward and bully among the nations OF
the earth; insolent to the weak, tyrannical
to the feeble and crnging and Obsequious to
the strong. Her history for century has
been d record of crime against the human
race-in Ireland, in Scotland, in Wales;
against the Roman Catholics; against the
Beers of South Africa; against the Hin
docs and the Chinese. Wherever there has
been feeble, weak. helpless nation,
Great Britain has been there for the pur-
pose Of rapacitF and plumber and conquest.
England bears no good will to this coun-
try. The memory of two defeats
rankles, ! dare say, in the minds of Eng
lishmen. When say that Great Britain is
not friendly to this country l mean that the
ruling classes are unfriendly to this country.
Her course has been always one of wrong,
insoleuce and outrage. England cheated
the South with false hopes of recognition,
and injured the North by violations OF neu-
trallty. Her course in the treaty of Wash
ington was actuated solely by
FEAR OF THE CONSEQUENCES
to that country in the next war in which
she might be engaged if she permitted the
principle which she established to stand
undenied. l believe there is no special
reciprocity of good will on the part
of America toward England. There are
few Americans who do not regret Waterloo.
There are few Americans who do not rec
ognize The fact that the course of England
towards this country has been one of inso-
lence and suspicion and outrage from the
beginning of our national existence. If l
read the transaction Alright. there is no pur-
pose on the part of Great Britain to secure
peaceful solution, a pacific Interpretation
of the doubtful provisions of the treaty of
1918, but rather deliberate purpose, so
far, to fonent the irritation and dis
content between Canada and the United
States as to prevent that pacification
in the immediate future which would be in
evitable if both people were left to the OPP
Grafton of the natural laws of trade and So
cety. | see very plainly what the purpose
of Great Britain has been in the matter.
She desires TO